317 So.3d 1229
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Eric Readon, a pastor and alleged public figure, sued WPLG and reporters over three 2017 news stories about his business dealings.
- WPLG broadcast allegations from multiple third parties (lawsuits, deposit disputes, alleged forgery, unpaid rent); many allegations were on public record or settled and WPLG contacted Readon pre-broadcast.
- One factual error in the reporting: WPLG said Readon sent a photo of a dead body to a federal prosecutor when the recipient was not yet a federal prosecutor (but was acting as guardian ad litem).
- The broadcasts displayed Readon in his pastoral role while reporting the business allegations.
- Readon’s third amended complaint asserted defamation and defamation by implication; the trial court dismissed it with prejudice and Readon appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, finding no actionable falsehood affecting the gist, no adequately pleaded actual malice, and no defamatory implication; dismissal with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Actionable false statement/defamation | Readon: WPLG published false statements (e.g., sent dead-body photo to a prosecutor) harming his reputation | WPLG: Reports were substantially true; allegations reported were from third parties and public records | Held: No actionable false statement — error did not change the gist; substantial-truth rule applies |
| Actual malice (public-figure standard) | Readon: WPLG recklessly failed to investigate and omitted exculpatory context, supporting actual malice | WPLG: Verified lawsuits via public records, used a known informant, and interviewed Readon—no reason to doubt sources | Held: No reasonable inference of actual malice; failure to investigate alone insufficient without evidence of deliberate avoidance |
| Defamation by implication (juxtaposition/omission) | Readon: Juxtaposing his pastoral images with business allegations implied misconduct in his pastoral role | WPLG: Profession provided public-context; broadcasts accused deceitful business practices, not misconduct as pastor | Held: No defamatory implication pleaded; allegations stated explicitly and profession provided permissible context |
| Dismissal with prejudice / leave to amend | Readon: Trial court should have allowed another amendment | WPLG: Prior pleadings showed same defects; further amendment would be futile and statute of limitations bars new claims | Held: Dismissal with prejudice not an abuse—third amended complaint failed and further amendment beyond third attempt would be futile |
Key Cases Cited
- N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (establishes actual malice standard for public-figure defamation)
- St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727 (defines reckless disregard and requires evidence of serious doubts about truth)
- Masson v. New Yorker Mag., 501 U.S. 496 (substantial-truth/gist doctrine in libel)
- Michel v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 816 F.3d 686 (pleading actual malice requires more than a failure to investigate)
- Smith v. Cuban Am. Nat’l Found., 731 So. 2d 702 (Florida application of substantial-truth in defamation)
- Woodard v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 616 So. 2d 501 (gist/sting test; minor inaccuracies not actionable)
- Harte-Hanks Commc’ns, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U.S. 657 (First Amendment limits on imposing investigative duties on the press)
- Jews for Jesus, Inc. v. Rapp, 997 So. 2d 1098 (defamation by implication doctrine — juxtaposition and omission theories)
- Heekin v. CBS Broad., Inc., 789 So. 2d 355 (illustrative defamatory juxtaposition creating false implication)
- Kohn v. City of Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538 (discusses dismissal with prejudice after multiple unsuccessful amendments)